The necessity for adequately gripping hand-held implements has been a long-known and recurring problem. A variety of grips have been explored, but problems still persist. Although it is known to include a rubberized grip about the handle of an implement, certain drawbacks still exist.
One problem encountered with prior art gripping means (such as U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,050,289 and 5,005,254) is the slippage of the grip vis-a-vis a handle. Whether a grip is glued to a handle or friction-fitted, such rubberized grips have a tendency to dislodge from a shaft. Furthermore, the longer the shaft, and the longer the grip vis-a-vis the shaft, the greater the likelihood of the grip rolling up on itself or slipping. Many attempts have been made to correct this problem, but to no avail. Ultimately, the hand-held implement is either replaced, or the grip is replaced, wasting much time and material.
Another problem involves the now frequent use of hockey stick shafts formed from composite material. "Space-age" materials, such as Kevlar.RTM., boron and graphite, while extremely strong in compression, tension and flexing, have been found to be susceptible to fracture when sharply impacted, such as by a hockey puck or another hockey stick.
It is desirable therefore to provide a hand-held implement with a resilient grip capable of extending a greater distance along the hockey stick shaft, and providing a grip that endures greater impacts and pressures without fracture or slippage.
One particular application where a shock damping is desirable along an entire shaft and where a grip is required to adhere strongly is that of a hockey stick. Currently, hockey stick grips tend to be just near the top of a shaft and are of a short length. If extended further down the shaft, or preferably all the way down the shaft, the grip tends to slip, roll or bunch in the prior art. To overcome these problems would be a great benefit to the sport and overall safety.
The following prior art reflects the state of the art of which applicant is aware and is included herewith to discharge applicant's acknowledged duty to disclose relevant prior art. It is stipulated, however, that none of these references teach singly nor render obvious when considered in any conceivable combination the nexus of the instant invention as disclosed in greater detail hereinafter and as particularly claimed.
INVENTOR ISSUE DATE PATENT NO. 2,201,706 Sukohl 05-21-1940 2,649,133 Just 08-18-1953 2,674,557 Boggs 04-06-1954 2,964,065 Haroldson, et al. 12-13-1960 3,020,192 Stephens, et al. 02-06-1962 3,125,478 Pratt 03-17-1964 3,606,326 Sparks 09-20-1971 4,016,640 Briggs 04-12-1977 4,080,879 Hoden, et al. 03-28-1978 4,134,198 Briggs 01-16-1979 4,273,601 Weingart 06-16-1981 4,579,617 Oberg, et al. 04-01-1986 4,923,541 Burger 05-08-1990 5,005,254 Uffindell 04-09-1991 5,024,712 Lecourt, et al. 06-18-1991 5,050,289 Uffindell 09-24-1991 5,373,616 Biersdorf, et al. 12-20-1994 5,458,330 Baum 10-17-1995 5,655,981 Reed 08-12-1997
The prior art listed above, but not specifically discussed, teach gripping devices and further catalog the prior art of which the applicant is aware. These references diverge even more starkly from the references specifically distinguished above.